Ladislaus believes that the Indefectibility of the Church means that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium; a sort of negative infallibility whereby he can never lead any of the faithful into error. The theory is called "infallible security" (which I have already provided a link) from an earlier exchange with Ladislaus. Actually this may prove to be the most common property of those who hold the pope as the rule of faith. Since he is preserved from all public error, he can be safely followed wherever he leads.
Nice try from "Drew" here to make this seem like it's something I made up. Drew's ramblings about how the Papal Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith vs. "Tradition" are simply heretical. It's just a repackaging of the same nonsense the Prots tried in asserting that "Scripture" is the rule off faith ... ignoring the fact that it requires authentic / authoritative interpretation also by the Living Magisterium. Only difference between Drew and the Prots is that Drew holds that there are two sources of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, whereas the Prots hold that there's only one.
That aside, see the bolded above where Drew attempts to make this seem like this is something "Ladislaus believes" ... as if I made this up out of thin air, when in point of fact it's THE fundamental and core belief of Catholicism, that the Papal Magisterium is the rock of the faith and the source of unity in faith, and as such inerrant. R&R have never, not once, produced a single pre-V2 theologian who holds that the Papal Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, harmful to souls, and lead souls to hell. That's because it flies in the face of the very foundation of the Church's claims to be the One True Church of Christ.
This dispute over the "5 Opinions" is a distraction, because every single one of them deals with the heresy of a Pope "as a private person" and exclude the possibility of error corrupting the Papal Magisterium.
Msgr. Fenton:
Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
See, R&R try to weasel out of basic Catholic principles by emphasizing the fact that a very limited amount of Papal Magisterium meets the notes of strict infallibility, and then extrapolate therefrom that the not-strictly-infallible 99% of Papal Magisterium could go completely corrupt without thereby compromising the indefectibility of the Church. Everything else outside the 1% of solemnly defined dogma is fair game.
What a ridiculous and decidedly non-Catholic caricature of the Catholic Church has been invented by R&R. Many of you are slouching toward Old Catholicism, and your beliefs differ from it in only a few details. I pointed out already how Decem at one point was almost verbatim regurgitating the Old Catholic "Declaration of Utrecht".
Now, unfortunately, to counter R&R's narrowing of the infallibility of the Papal Magisterium to the tiny percentage of solemnly-defined dogma, some SVs have gone to the opposite extreme of exaggerating the scope of what Msgr. Fenton calls "infallibility in the strict sense", to where some hold that even a book that has been given an
imprimatur is effectively infallible. Others don't go quite as far, but still exaggerate the scope of those things that are strictly infallible.
But when you posit that the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship can become so corrupt that Catholics not only may but even must sever communion with and subjection to the putative Holy See in order to remain Catholic and to save their souls, that's clearly crossed the line into undermining the indefectibility of the Church, rendering the Church meaningless and useless ... nay, more than useless, a positive danger to souls. We'd be better off without such a Church, and the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and the Old Catholics were not that far off the mark.
We have the teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See cannot be blemished by error. If the V2 papal claimants have not "blemished" the Holy See with error, then there's no such thing. We have a veritable wall of papal teaching and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers upholding the same thing. We have every single pre-V2 Catholic theologian teaching the same thing, and R&R have not produced a single Catholic theologian who taught the principles of R&R. You'll find R&R's teaching only among Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholics. It should give Decem pause that he's the favorite poster of the Eastern Orthodox heretic John Pontrello.
We have Trent anathematizing the proposition that the Rites used by the Catholic Church could be inducements to impiety. We have a near-universal consensus of pre-V2 Catholic theologians supporting the disciplinary infallibility of the Church (which includes the Mass).
Oh, and, by the way, Archbishop Lefebvre also repeatedly upheld the principle that the Papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot be responsible for perpetrating this degree of destruction (also ignored by modern R&R). Those statements are also simply ignored and filtered out. +Lefebvre's only thing was that he couldn't come up with a definitive explanation for how this happened. He meandered around a number of possible theories or explanations, and concluded that SVism is possible, but deferred to the Church's judgment for definitively resolving the matter.
Those of you who continue to promote the notion that the Papal Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt and harmful to souls, you're in grave danger of losing your faith and need to prayerfully reconsider. You've basically become a variety of Old Catholic.
Topic: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position (Read 5271 times)